Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Surveillance Drones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco supervisors approve SFPD drone policy amid questions about state law
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 on first reading to approve an SFPD unassisted aerial vehicle policy after heated debate about whether the department had already violated state rules and whether voters'passed Proposition E could substitute for board approval.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved, on first reading, an ordinance adopting an unassisted aerial vehicle (drone) policy for the San Francisco Police Department, amid debate about possible conflicts with state law and how Proposition E interacts with the board's oversight role.
Supporters said the policy includes privacy and safety protections; opponents said the department had already used drones without clear legal authorization and that inviting court challenges could undermine prosecutions or civil liberties.
Supervisor Preston (member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors) said the revised policy addressed several priorities raised by civil-rights advocates and assured that drones would not be used as weapons. "These drones are not equipped, or allowed to be equipped, with weapons or used as weapons against people," Preston said, and praised meetings between his office, SFPD and civil-rights stakeholders for producing changes.
The policy passed on first reading by a 9-2 roll call vote, with Supervisors Walton and Ronan voting no. The ordinance was carried as Item 20 on the agenda and was amended on the floor before the vote.
Why it matters: The debate centered on whether SFPD violated a state statute requiring governing-body approval of certain surveillance technologies and on how Proposition E, which voters approved earlier this year, affects the board's role. Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi told the board the state law requires approval for certain equipment and that "when the voters approved Proposition E earlier this year, they acted in the place of the board in approving the use of drones by the department for the first year of their operation." He said the legislation requires annual reapproval going forward.
Supporters argued the formal board approval and the policy amendments would add privacy safeguards and operational limits. Supervisor Preston said those safeguards include prohibitions against weaponization, protections for bystanders' privacy and limits on uses that could chill free expression. "These were major priorities ... and for our office," he said.
Opponents and some members raised legal and civil-liberties concerns. Supervisor Walton (member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors) pressed whether the city is currently violating state law, asking, "Number 1, are we violating state law by using drones right now?" Walton said the department had already deployed drones on city streets and that presenting a policy after deployment increased the risk of legal challenges.
Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi (City Attorney's Office) said the administration submitted the ordinance to answer technical questions and to provide the board with the policy details the state law contemplates. He said the ordinance "would require the department to come back when they do all their other reapprovals of the other military technology that they're using currently."
Outcome and next steps: The ordinance passed on first reading. The city attorney's office and SFPD will be required to follow the reapproval schedule under state law and to return for subsequent approvals as necessary. The record shows the policy was amended in committee and on the floor before the roll-call vote.
Discussion versus decision: Board debate focused on three separate threads: (1) operational constraints and privacy safeguards contained in the policy (discussion), (2) concerns that SFPD deployed drones before board approval and whether that violates state law (legal concern/direction to seek clarity), and (3) the formal vote approving the policy on first reading (decision). The vote on first reading does not by itself resolve future compliance questions; several supervisors urged the department to comply with state law going forward.
Votes at a glance: Item 20 (Unassisted Aerial Vehicle policy as amended) '1: Passed on first reading, 9-2.
Key quotes: "These drones are not equipped, or allowed to be equipped, with weapons or used as weapons against people." 'Supervisor Preston (member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors) "Number 1, are we violating state law by using drones right now?" 'Supervisor Walton (member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors) "When the voters approved Proposition E earlier this year, they acted in the place of the board in approving the use of drones by the department for the first year of their operation." 'Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi (City Attorney's Office)
Ending: The ordinance now advances through the city's legislative process as a first-reading approval. Supervisors and the deputy city attorney emphasized the need for the department to return for annual reapprovals and for the administration to ensure future equipment acquisitions comply with state requirements to avoid litigation risks.
